Journal of Psychology and Theology
Copyright 2009 by Rosemead School of Psychology
2009, Vol. 37, No. 1, 15-27
Biola University, 0091-6471/410-730
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PODIUM:
STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON LEARNING
INTEGRATION
M. ELIZABETH LEWIS HALL
Biola University
JENNIFER S. RIPLEY
Regent University
FERNANDO L. GARZON
Liberty University
MICHAEL W. MANGIS
Wheaton College
that this learning occurs “through relational attachments with mentors who model that integration for
students personally” (p. 363).
The current study built on Sorensen’s work on the
influence of professors on the learning of integration.
In his work, “integration,” or more accurately, integration learning, was operationalized as “how exemplary
and helpful the professor was for the student’s own
integrative pilgrimage” (Sorensen, 1997, p. 8). These
two characteristics, exemplary and helpful, were
derived from student focus groups on how they evaluated faculty. The open-ended survey questions in the
current study built on Sorensen’s work in two ways.
First, by leaving the questions open-ended rather than
focusing on faculty, the questions allowed the
researchers to discover whether students found factors other than the personal characteristics of the professors helpful to the learning of integration. Secondly, the questions helped to flesh out what students
found “exemplary” and “helpful,” both in the professors, and in other influences on learning integration.
Student perspectives on the transmission of integration in integrative programs were examined through
a qualitative study. Participants in the study were
595 graduate and undergraduate students (305
women and 247 men) drawn from four Evangelical
Christian institutions of higher education. Participants provided written data in response to three
open-ended questions, inquiring about the exemplary and helpful aspects of their educational experiences with respect to integration. Post-hoc content
analyses informed by grounded theory analytic processes were used to analyze the data, resulting in two
overarching themes: Facilitating Integration, and
Concepts of Integration, which respectively address
how students learn integration, and how students
conceptualize integration. The implications for the
conceptualization of integration and for the pedagogy of facilitating integration are explored.
n 1997, Sorenson pointed out that although programs in psychology emphasizing the integration
of theology and psychology had existed for over
30 years, no empirical study had examined how such
integration actually occurred. With that article,
Sorenson launched what would be the first programmatic research in the educational communication of
integration. The final report in that series (Sorenson,
Derflinger, Bufford, & McMinn, 2004) concluded
that all students learn integration the same way, and
I
METHOD
Participants
Participants in the study were 595 graduate and
undergraduate students drawn from four Evangelical
Christian institutions of higher education. Participants consisted of 305 women and 247 men. Median age was in the 26-35 age range with almost half
the participants in the 18-25 age range. The sample
was largely homogenous ethnically; 72.6% identified
themselves as Caucasian, 8.7% as African-American,
5.9%, as Asian American, 3% as Hispanic, >1% as
Many thanks to Kendra Bailey, who assisted in the initial analysis
of the qualitative data. Please address correspondence to Elizabeth M. L. Hall, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, 13800 Biola Ave., La Mirada, CA 90639.
15
16
Native American, and 1.5%, Other. The majority of
students, 88%, were full-time graduate students and
95% were on-campus as opposed to distance-learning students. Totals do not add to 100% due to some
non-response to items. Disciplines represented
include Law (37.5%), Counseling and Psychology
(25.5%), Communication (4.7%), Theology (2.4%),
Business (1.8%), and Education (1.8%).
Religious affiliation of the students was varied with
the highest number identifying as some type of Baptist
(25.5%), followed by those that indicated they were
non-denominational (22.2%), Evangelical (8.6%),
Catholic (6.6%), Presbyterian (5.7%), Methodist
(4.4%), Assembly of God (4.2%), and Pentecostal
(4%). The remaining identities listed varied with less
than 10 per group. There were only two people who
indicated a religion other than Christian: one Hindu
and one Mormon. Median church attendance for the
sample was weekly with 75% attending church weekly
or more than once a week. Eighty percent of the sample indicated that they attend university chapels either
“never” or “a few times a year.” Fifty-one percent of the
sample attends a small group (Bible study, prayer
group, etc.) at least twice a month. Only 6% of those
small groups were organized by their University. The
mean score on the Religious Commitment Inventory
was 38.05(9.28) which is higher than the norm for
public university students, 23.70(11.05) (Ripley, Garzon, Hall, Mangis, & Murphy, 2009).
Procedures
At one graduate institution, the data were collected on paper questionnaires in 10% of the courses
offered that semester. The other institutions collected data through online email lists. At one institution
only graduate students in psychology or counseling
were sampled due to difficulties collecting from
other students. At another institution 10% of the
graduate student body was invited by email to participate. At the fourth institution both the graduate and
undergraduate students were invited to participate.
While the method of data collection was not identical between the four institutions, the sample is large
(595) and therefore robust enough to compensate
for the differences in data collection. However, the
fact that there were restrictions on the types of students (graduate vs. undergraduate) and majors at
some institutions could have a non-random effect on
the data. All data were collected anonymously.
STUDENT PERSPECTIVES
Instrumentation
The questions for the study were based on Sorenson et al.’s (1997; 2004) previous research in an
attempt to both replicate the findings on attachment
to individual mentors, and extend the original
research to relevant institution-wide practices. Quantitative data were gathered for a companion study
(see Ripley et al., 2009, present issue). In addition,
the students provided data in response to three
open-ended questions, which were used for the present study: “In my experience, the best example of
integration I have seen was (describe what you
saw)”; “What do you most appreciate about the way
integration is done in your school?”; and “What
would you like to see improved about the way integration is done in your school?” Post-hoc content
analyses informed by grounded theory analytic processes were used (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Data Analysis
Content analysis was used as the theoretical
framework. In this approach, the presence, meanings, and relationships of concepts in a text are quantified and analyzed in order to derive the meanings
implicit in those texts. In order to conduct content
analysis on the responses to the open-ended survey
questions, the text was coded into discrete categories, then analyzed in order to determine the relationships between those categories.
The coding was informed by grounded theory
coding strategies. Grounded theory analysis proceeds
through open, axial, and selective coding strategies.
Utilizing constant comparison, the accounts were
first grouped into categories in open coding (e.g.,
“professor,” “course content,” “devotionals”). The
second stage, axial coding, involved the integration
of categories with their properties (e.g., noting what
was actually appreciated about the devotionals: their
content, heartfeltness, or how they provided
glimpses into the professors’ lives—all properties of
the “devotional” category), and the connection of categories (e.g., noting how categories tended to cooccur). This resulted in theoretical saturation, in
which no new categories or properties of categories
appeared. Given the method of data collection (mass
questionnaires, rather than interviews), saturation
occurred well before all the content was coded. The
final stage of selective coding led to the selection of
two related central codes, Facilitating Integration,
and Concepts of Integration.
HALL, RIPLEY, GARZON, and MANGIS
While the concept of internal validity can be problematic when applied to qualitative studies (Seale,
1999), several strategies were utilized to ensure the
quality of the research. Students from different geographical areas, institutions, and denominations participated in the study, achieving within-method data
triangulation (Denzin, 1978); data triangulation
occurs when instances of a phenomenon in several
different settings result in richer descriptions of phenomena. All theoretical statements were grounded in
data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), which Seale (1999)
considers an indicator of quality when theoretical
statements become convincing because of their link
to data. Theoretical saturation, which was reached
during analysis, also provides some degree of confidence in the categories utilized for analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The first question in the survey addressed the
“exemplary” factor, asking students to complete the
stem, “In my experience, the best example of integration I have seen was (describe what you saw).” The second and third questions addressed the “helpfulness”
factor from both positive and negative angles, asking
students, “What do you most appreciate about the way
integration is done in your school?” and “What would
you like to see improved about the way integration is
done in your school?” The data were organized
around the two broad themes mentioned above, Facilitating Integration, and Concepts of Integration, which
respectively address how students learn integration,
that is, what they find helpful, and how students conceptualize integration through their descriptions of
exemplary integration. There was often overlap
between the responses to the questions; what students
found exemplary, they also tended to find helpful.
While frequencies are provided for each category,
it should be noted that these frequencies do not represent numbers of students who endorsed this category. Some students provided more than one answer
to a given question prompt, or an answer that fell
under more than one category. The description and
discussion of each theme will be presented together,
rather than in separate sections, followed by a general discussion. The themes are outlined in Table 1.
Facilitating Integration
The focus in this theme is on the factors identified by students that seemed to facilitate integrative
thinking and practice in students. Students identified
17
factors having to do with the professors, with the
curriculum of the institution, and with the institutional climate. Each of these areas will be discussed
in the following paragraphs.
Professors. Five traits emerged as significant to the
teaching of integration: self-revealing, caring, welcoming, dedicated, and open-minded. Self-revelation (34
responses) refers to evidence of ongoing process in a
personal relationship with God, which is revealed in
an emotionally transparent way. This was evidenced
through professors’ discussions regarding moral decision making, accounts of struggles in their own life in
relation to God, stories about how experiences had
led to spiritual growth, and insights that were gained
through their personal devotional practices. One student clarified that this is different than a professor saying “how I ought to integrate my faith into [my profession].” The students’ emphasis seemed to be on the
process with God that was observed in the professor,
and on the transparency with which it was revealed,
rather than necessarily on the integrative or Christian
content of the professor’s revelation. For example, a
student related that her professor would often begin
class with an anecdote about his personal experience
in a professional setting. What struck her was his
openness about these experiences: “At times he freely
admitted that what he had done was not the best and
at those times he prayed for God’s mercy in that situation and wisdom for the next time.” Another spoke of
being influenced by a professor who was diagnosed
with cancer. “Integration was modeled in this person’s attitude about suffering, her presence in interacting with others; her openness to be genuine and truthful about what is going on internally; hope in her faith
regardless of [the] immediate situation.” Students
used the words “transparent,” “vulnerable,” “open,”
“humble,” and “honest” to describe the professors’
attitude in self-revealing.
The students did not spell out why this particular
type of self-revelation was helpful. This specific type
of self-revelation appeared to facilitate integration in
that it allowed glimpses into the professors’ lives and
hearts that might otherwise have been missed. Perhaps seeing professors struggle with certain decisions
or circumstances allowed the students to identify
more with them, normalizing their own experiences
and making it easier to live integratively themselves.
Or perhaps the openness and transparency convinced the students of the reality of the professors’
relationship with God, making them more credible
sources or authorities. This perspective is consistent
18
STUDENT PERSPECTIVES
TABLE 1
Overview of Themes
Facilitating Integration:
Professors:
Self-revelation
Caring or receptiveness
Welcoming of integrative discussion
Dedication to integration
Open-mindedness
Curriculum:
Intentionality
Balance between general and special revelation
Presence of diversity of opinions on integration
Pervasiveness of integration
Institutional climate:
A context of “no barriers” between Christianity and academics
Corporate expressions of Christianity
Sense of community
Concepts of Integration:
Integration as propositional content:
Lining up biblical and disciplinary truths
Contextualizing study of the discipline with faith
Evaluating theories from a Christian worldview
Using faith as a guide to or motivation for the discipline
Presenting a coherent integrative model
Acknowledging the presence of spiritual realities
Fleshing out Christian principles with disciplinary content
Illustrating disciplinary content/methodology with Scripture
Emphasizing quality in propositional integration:
Academic excellence
Relevance to class material
Natural vs. Contrived
Integration as embodiment:
Character traits or behaviors
Living out the faith in personal and work settings
Integration as practice:
Providing specific instructions on applying integrative insights
Providing real life examples on applying integration
Providing examples of facing professional challenges
Providing examples of Christian principles and character traits in disciplinary
contexts
Using the discipline as a platform for evangelism
HALL, RIPLEY, GARZON, and MANGIS
with attachment theory, in which self-revelation generally precedes increased commitment and attachment in romantic adult attachments (Laurenceau,
Feldman Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998). Extrapolating from this, it is possible that self-revelation on
the part of the professor opens the door for
increased attachment to him or her.
The attitude of caring or receptiveness (39
responses) that the professors demonstrated toward
students was also a consistent theme. This attitude
was variously described as “caring for students,” “personal involvement,” “welcoming,” “accepting,” and
“open to students.” One student expressed it well by
stating “[The professor] didn’t care solely about his
students’ grades, but also their lives.” This attitude
was illustrated through stories of professors who
opened their homes to students, cooked meals for
them, noticed when they were not doing well and
took action on their behalf, and took time with students to help them and to get to know them. Students indicated that this attitude allowed modeling
and mentoring to occur more optimally. For example, one student spoke of feeling welcomed into a
professor’s home. “I was modeled what a Christian
professional in the field of psychology looks like
when they [sic] go back into their family.” Another
student addressed the mentoring aspect, stating,
These [mentoring relationships] took the form of inviting students into professor’s homes, open discussions on topics of
interest, and a general openness toward life and friendship
that made the reality of the professor’s commitment to the
faith in and outside of the classroom vivid and vibrant.
A third trait had to do with an attitude that welcomed integrative discussion (16 responses). Students noted that professors provided opportunities
to integrate, were willing to address issues, and
encouraged questions having to do with integration.
As one student noted, “Mostly, I appreciate the professors at my school welcoming us into their process
and discussion of this topic of integration.” Similarly,
another stated, “I do appreciate at [institution] that
students are given MANY [caps in original] times to
talk about integration.” And a third, “I guess I appreciate that it is an ongoing conversation.” Dedication
to integration is a fourth, related trait (7 responses).
Faculty were described as “really believ[ing] in,”
“desiring to,” “hav[ing] a definite passion” for, having
an “earnest desire” for, and being “dedicated” to the
integrative enterprise. “The faculty really believe in
what they are doing,” noted one student. Another
stated, “I appreciate that [institution] isn’t satisfied
19
with where they stand and, as a whole, the school
desires to understand more fully what integration
looks like not only for the student and the professor,
but also for psychology as a field of study.”
Finally, a fifth trait noted by students that is relevant to the facilitation of integration, is open-mindedness on the part of the professors (19 responses).
Professors put forward as examples respected the
positions, goals, and convictions of students, did not
try to force students to agree with them, recognized
denominational differences, and were honest about
their own limitations. This allowed a climate of freedom of expression, where students were able to
wrestle with integrative issues without being afraid
of “doing it wrong.” “Nobody is told what to think or
do, everyone is encouraged to think about and figure
it out for himself,” was one student’s commentary. “I
like that we are able to feely express our opinions. It
doesn’t matter what denomination we are from, we
are all able to share and value our fellow student’s
thoughts and opinions,” stated another. Students
were also quite critical of professors who were perceived to be narrow-minded or biased.
Curriculum. Many students noted positive qualities about the curricular aspect of their institutions,
including a focus on intentionality, a balance of general and special revelation, the presence of a diversity
of opinions, and the pervasiveness of integration.
Intentionality (36 responses) was seen in class structures that regularly set aside time for prayer and integrative discussions, the incorporation of integrative
assignments into the coursework, the obvious
thought put into making connections between Christian concepts in subjects where integration is more
challenging (such as statistics), and an emphasis on
making students think through integrative issues.
“The school seems to design the curriculum to help
students learn how to integrate.” “It is very intentional and consistently-emphasized. It’s a theme that is
reiterated and visited from the first course that one
takes to the last project one completes.” “Each student is challenged to understand what integration
means to him/her—we are encouraged to personalize integration, not just sit in lectures about it.”
Students desired a balance between general and
special revelation in the curriculum (43 responses).
Of all the themes identified in this study, this was the
area most highly critiqued by students. Some students
felt their institution had found a happy balance, as
reflected in the following quote: “I think that there is
a dedication to Christian principles, but there is also
20
a realistic attitude that we live in a secular society.
Understanding that means finding a balance between
the theological and the secular schools of thoughts.”
Balance was also reflected in a student’s comment
that “Psychology is not viewed as all bad and theology is not viewed as the only answer.” However, most
responses in this category faulted their institutions
for erring on one or the other side of the balance (30
out of 43 responses), often with angry undertones.
Only seven of these desired more biblical material; 23
felt that integration was done at the expense of being
prepared in their field of study.
Students valued the presence of a diversity of opinions among faculty and students regarding integration, stemming from individual differences, denominational differences, and cultural/ethnic differences
(44 responses). Several clearly linked diversity to positive learning outcomes. For example, a student stated,
“The model is left open. There is no assumption
about individual values. This fosters great discussions
and provides diverse experiences.” Students also
called for even more diversity in these areas:
I would like to hear more about [how] integration can transcend race and apply to different ethnic groups. I keep hearing about how it should be done, but a lot of the things I hear
do not apply or are [not] viewed and experienced the same by
minority groups.
Some students, however, found the diversity frustrating, and desired clearer models for integration (6
responses). A student wrestling with this tension
expressed,
Well, I suppose the down side to multiple perspectives is that it
can be a bit bewildering to know how to be a psychologist and
a Christian when there is no single standard to work from.
Though I liked the multiple perspectives, there were times
when I wrestled with the issue that I longed for someone to
say, ‘THIS [caps in original] is the template for integration.’
Students noted the pervasiveness of integration
across the curriculum (58 responses). “I appreciate
the way it underpins and is woven throughout all the
course material and the manner in which it permeates to and through student interactions.” Or, simply,
“That it is EVERYWHERE [caps in original].” This
was also an area where students expressed discontent, when some professors integrated and others did
not, or when professors limited integration to short
devotionals or certain lectures, rather than weaving it
throughout the course (26 of 58 responses).
Institutional climate. In addition to characteristics of the professors and of the curriculum, students
noted that facets of the overall institutional climate
STUDENT PERSPECTIVES
were helpful to them. Specifically, they valued the
context of “no barriers” between their Christianity
and their academics, the valuing of Christian experience and of integration that they experienced, and
the sense of community that was created.
Students with backgrounds in secular institutions
were particularly appreciative of a context in which they
didn’t feel pressure to keep their faith commitments
separated out (10 responses). “It is nice not to feel that
as a Christian you must keep your Christianity ‘in the
closet,’” noted one student. “I do not feel as though I
am always on a battlefield to defend my beliefs in God
and His power to affect change in people’s lives
through the medium of therapy,” noted another.
Similarly, students valued expression of their
Christianity through praying, worshipping together,
and the presence of devotions (45 responses). Others noted that their school demonstrated a valuing of
integration (11 responses). “Our school stresses the
importance of Christian integration for us to be really effective in this world,” noted one.
Students appreciated the sense of community
they experienced at their institutions. Praying for
people in need within the community was frequently
noted as contributing to this sense of community.
Students also felt held accountable to live as Christians, and experienced opportunities to get to know
other students and professors beyond superficial
limits. One student took time to express this sense of
community in detail.
My best example in integration has not been in a specific class
... but in the environment that [institution] provides for its students. [Institution] tends to take the Thomas Merton
approach of educating the person holistically and specifically.
They provide an environment that is graceful in allowing their
students to process moral, psychological and spiritual issues
in a manner that is not condemning but also not condoning of
inappropriateness. Most of the professors tend to be responsive and available for the students, which in turn builds security and safety and these are the principles of attachment. From
a biblical perspective, I would say that God works very much
this way with his children.
Students noted how influential other students and
administrative staff were in helping to create this type
of climate, in addition to professors. Student devotionals, care from other students, and the opportunity
for growing together contributed to community, as
did the helpful, caring attitudes of administrative staff.
Concepts of Integration
When asked to provide examples of integration,
students often provided responses that are broader
HALL, RIPLEY, GARZON, and MANGIS
than traditional notions of integration as a certain way
of combining theological content with another discipline. Analysis of these responses suggested three
themes. In addition to a more traditional category of
Integration as Propositional Content, students also
provided responses suggesting the themes Integration
as Embodiment and Integration as Practice.
Integration as propositional content. Many students spoke of specific integrative content that was
communicated in courses, in devotionals, or through
other venues such as chapels or retreats. While many
students simply mentioned the course or professor
they found helpful (65 responses), others provided
specific examples of integrative concepts, or of ways
in which professors brought biblical/theological and
discipline-specific material together.
The most common type of example involved simply lining up a biblical truth with a corresponding
truth from the discipline (82 responses). The way in
which the two bodies of knowledge were brought
together was illustrated through the common use of
“connecting” verbs such as “applying” biblical teachings/Scripture, “relating,” “comparing,” and “tying,” in
addition to the common use of the generic word,
“integrating” the two disciplines. For example, a law
student indicated, “[the professor] engages in exegesis
of the 10 commandments and their relation to contracts.” A psychology student stated, “the instructor
tied biblical principles with very clinical material at a
very philosophical, as well as practical level.” A journalism student provided a more specific example:
“[the professor] showing us the code of journalism
ethics and seeing how they closely correlate with the
word of God, specifically, ‘lying lips are an abomination to God.’” At a more global level, a student noted,
“In each class the professors related the relevant scripture to the area of study in the class.”
At face value, this finding suggests that the most
common kind of integration that students encounter is
what Carter and Narramore (1979) called the Parallels
model, and what Eck (1996) identified as the Correlates Process of the Non-Manipulative Paradigm, in
which concepts from one discipline are “linked” with
concepts from the other discipline that cover overlapping content, without attempts at constructing a new,
more unified whole. However, it is likely that the number of responses in this category is inflated, as many
students were quite brief in their responses, and the
integration they were describing may, in fact, have
been more sophisticated than merely drawing attention to parallels between the two bodies of knowledge.
21
A second kind of propositional integration
involved faith as a context or foundation for the
study of the discipline (32 responses). At the broadest
level, one professor “started his class with the verse, ‘in
thy light, we see light’ to explain the reason why we
study all subjects from the Christian worldview.” This
concept of God as the author of truth was also
affirmed by another student, “the fact that ‘all truth is
God’s truth’ is celebrated ...” Similarly, another student described the following exemplar of integration:
My statistics professor finding a way to explain how statistics
is a function of God’s creation, in full splendor. Though not
directly applicable to my future career as a clinician, it awakened me to the reality that I CAN [caps in the original] integrate my faith with my profession to any extent (i.e., if he can
do it with stats, I can do it with whatever I am studying).
Many students reflected the idea that putting the
discipline-specific material in the larger context of
Scripture offered a broader perspective or provided
greater understanding, meaning, insight, or purpose
to that knowledge. A law student stated, “biblical
principles are fully integrated as a template laid
across the points, policies and concepts of the law.
This permits a spiritual understanding of the law with
scriptural benchmarks.” Some students used “worldview” language to articulate this understanding of
Christianity as the larger context for their learning.
One student was presented with the idea of the discipline as a way to “represent the kingdom of God.” In
the counseling and teaching fields, several students
saw the concept of the client/student as made in
God’s image, as an important context for their work.
This conceptualization of integration, in which
faith is a context or foundation for the study of the
discipline, reflects Johnson’s (1992) identification of
foundational and contextual roles for the Bible within psychological science. Johnson noted that all
human thought requires that individuals hold to a set
of beliefs that are basic and that are assumed without
being inferred from other beliefs. He also noted that
for Christians, some of these foundational beliefs
are derived from Scripture, and do, in fact, serve as
an epistemological foundation for other beliefs. He
also notes that the Christian story of the task and
responsibilities of humans before the fall, the
entrance of sin in the world, and the meaning of purpose for creation and ourselves, do serve as a
revealed context that provides new meaning to
beliefs derived from specific disciplines.
Other students found it helpful when professors
challenged them to evaluate theories from a
22
Christian worldview (25 responses). This third type
of integration was characterized by the language of “critique.” Commonly-used words included “congruence”
vs. “contradiction,” “comparison” vs. “contrast,” “conformed” vs. “digressed,” and “evaluation.” One student
articulated that integration was “using the Bible as a litmus test for what was written in the textbook.” Drawing on a different metaphor, another student stated, “I
appreciate that they educate us ... through a Christian
lens.” In yet a third metaphor, another student appreciated that “It gives us a basis/frame of reference to
gauge the knowledge of man against the wisdom of
God.” Eck (1996) deemed this a Manipulative Integration Paradigm, in which the data from one’s discipline
must be altered or filtered through the control beliefs
of Christianity. Johnson (1992) identified this
approach as the canonical role of Scripture, in which
the task is to note similarities between the canon of
Scripture and the discipline, but also to point out dissimilarities in order to weed out falsehoods. While
acknowledging that this may be necessary, Johnson
observed that in the canonical approach, the Bible’s
role is static and non-interactive, and ultimately does
not result in the Bible informing the discipline. It could
be added that this also precludes the discipline informing the interpretation of Scripture.
A fourth approach was of faith as a guide to or
motivation for being in a discipline (23 responses).
Some students described this as learning that principles from Scripture can be applied to their life, or
their practice as a teacher, counselor, or lawyer.
Other students found inspiration in Christian motivations for practice, “to glorify God,” and “Christ as the
reason for your training.” A student described exemplary integration as “a series of in-class Bible studies
that look at what God says AND [caps in original]
what he demonstrates about justice in order to consider how we are called to use psychology in the
world.” It is noteworthy that articles on integration to
date have not identified this particular angle or lens
on integration, suggesting the need to study it further.
The following approaches to integration were
mentioned by only a few students each and will be
only briefly described. Several students appreciated
the presentation of a coherent integrative model
(10 responses). These students recognized the
sophistication of models that pulled together material from both sources and integrated them into a
meaningful whole, in a way similar to what Johnson
(1992) describes as the dialogical role of Scripture, in
which a genuine dialogue between the two disciples
STUDENT PERSPECTIVES
allows the Bible “to mold and re-shape the meaning
of psychological theory or the interpretation of findings” (p. 352). Eck (1996) might label this the Unifies
Process in the Non-Manipulative Paradigm, in which
“truth to be integrated from each discipline is
brought together to create a unified set of truths that
mirror the wholeness and unity of God’s created and
revealed truths” (p. 109). This is considered the most
complete model of propositional integration by
authors writing about this topic.
Others noted underlying assumptions about the
presence of spiritual realities that influenced class
content (8 responses). Examples included the value
of faith in the life of mentally healthy individuals, the
spiritual aspect in healing mentally ill people, the
presence of the Holy Spirit in the counseling process,
and recognizing that students, counselees, and fellow
students are children of God or made in God’s
image. Four students described integration where disciplinary content was used to flesh out principles of
Christian living. For example, “In Advanced Stats,
[the professor] ... would give devotions on how sin
could be considered ‘restricted range.’” Three students noted that professors used Scripture or Christian practice in order to illustrate disciplinary content or methodology. For example, a logic
professor taught about informal fallacies by using
examples of ways that non-Christians argue against
the validity of Christianity.
In addition to articulating what appear to be eight
different approaches to propositional integration
(outlined in the paragraphs above), student comments also revealed sensitivity to the quality of the
propositional integration to which they were
exposed. They expressed admiration for integration
that showed academic excellence (18 responses), relevance to course material (8 responses), and that was
done naturally, without being forced (40 responses),
and were strongly critical of attempts at integration
that did not meet these criteria. Each of these four criteria for quality integration will be briefly described.
With respect to academic excellence, students
expect integration that reflects not only high standards with respect to material from the discipline,
but also sophistication in the knowledge and exegesis of biblical material, and respect for the integrity
of both fields (18 responses). For example, a student
liked “That it is done in with a loyalty to the inerrancy of Scripture and commitment to the scientific
methods of psychology that is culturally relevant.”
Another, that “It has, for the most part, not been
HALL, RIPLEY, GARZON, and MANGIS
about appending a few biblical passages but about a
good biblical and theological and historical
approach.” On the critical side, a student noted, “I
think it is hard for someone to do good integration
when they do not have theological training. I would
like to see my school hire someone who has both
theological and psychological training ...”
Students also expect biblical or theological material to be relevant to the class material (8 responses).
A lack of relevance was noted by a student who stated, “Some assignments and professors seem to integrate scripture, devotionals, and assignments to fulfill a quota. I often see professors read a devotional
at the beginning of class which is completely unrelated to the subject matter or our experience as students . . .” Another noted that “When the topic of
integration is actually integrated with the subject
matter, it makes sense. It makes no sense when the
discussion of integration occurs only on the last day
of classes.”
Finally, many students expressed a desire for integration that was natural and not forced or contrived (40 responses). Words such as “genuine,” “natural,” “non-ceremonial,” “subtle,” “heartfelt,” “real,”
“honest,” and “seamless” were used to express the
quality of this integration. Other phrases included
“not forced,” “never pushed,” “non-forcefully,” “not
overdone,” “not an add-on,” “not overbearing,” “not
awkward,” and “not crammed down anyone’s throat.”
Several students were very articulate about the dangers of contrived integration. “Sometimes it’s a
stretch—not every principle will have directly applicable Scripture to read along with it.” “The professors
try too hard to force a square peg in a round hole.”
I think that often times there is such a desire for integration
and a relevance to Scripture that they have to search and
stretch Scripture to apply where it really doesn’t fit and that
makes the actual integration seem not so strong because the
weak applications seem fake.
In contrast, one individual had high praise for his or
her experience:
For many of my professors it seems to come completely naturally. The classes are not divided into lecture/discussion and
then integration with the former being given more weight, but
instead they blend together the way they ought to. They put
forth the message that if we truly are followers of Christ, that
should inform every aspect of our lives to the point that “integration” is not necessary as a separate step, but a practice that
flows constantly and naturally out of our walk with God.
Integration as embodiment. (72 responses) The
importance of an embodied integration was
23
expressed by many students. For example, one student stated,
I appreciate that integration is personal, and that it may look
different and unique among different people who do it. Integration is not just a theoretical model; while theory and discussion are important, integration is a way of life, and a way of
relating to others, and acting both professionally and Christianly at the same time.
Or, as another student put it, “I appreciate that integration is not taught but lived.” The concept of being
“lived out” is also expressed by a student who stated,
“It is something that is encouraged to be lived out,
not just talked about. From the president on down, it
is modeled regularly and consistently.” Other students contrasted this type of integration with propositional integration. “There is open dialogue about
how difficult it can be to conceptualize integration ...
I think our program is designed to help us experience
integration, if at all possible, because the theoretical
learning of it seems empty.” Students also expressed
the desire to experience more embodied integration,
“The best way for the school to ‘do’ integration is to
hire faculty who are living and breathing it. Real people who are integrated will become contagious ...”
One student expressed the desire to spend more
unstructured time with professors, “not necessarily
for us to do anything other than to allow the integrated essence of these professors to ooze into us.”
Many students described specific character traits
or behaviors of the professors as exemplars of integration. Character traits that were specifically mentioned included loving, “with grace, boundaries, and
commitment,” “with a high level of professionalism,”
humble, dedicated, putting a high priority on family,
balanced, excellent, real, integrous and meek.
Students also mentioned the value of seeing professors live out their faith in both personal and work
settings. In fact, variations of “living out their faith”
abounded, in phrases such as “living out,” “living his
faith,” “living his life in a Christ-like way,” “lived the
example of Jesus,” and “how they live their lives.”
One student wrote,
The reason I came to a Christian graduate program was not to
be taught integration (although that’s been nice) but simply to
be surrounded by professionals who would model what an
integrated professional looks like. For me, it’s simply learning,
working, and living alongside my professors and supervisors,
watching and observing how they live their lives, how they
practice, simply observing who they are.
Similarly, a student related “Spending time with professors before and after class, as well as outside of
24
school, I was able to see their personal integration,
and that was more powerful than any of the formal
training.” Another student mentioned a professor
who taught students “to live their faith first and their
job as a part of it.” These quotes echo Sorenson’s
(1997) identification of the professors’ importance
for students’ “integrative pilgrimage” (p. 8).
Interestingly, not all of the “examples” of integration provided by the students are necessarily integration of the Christian faith with their profession. Many
of them are simply demonstrations of the authenticity
of the professors’ Christian commitment in character
and behavior. For example, a professor was described
as living a “lifestyle of faith, encouragement, and spiritual growth.” Another student stated, “my professors
simply lived the example of Jesus.” It would appear
that this is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
the facilitation of integration. As one student put it,
“Professors can write or talk all they want but if I cannot see it displayed then it does not mean as much.”
These descriptions indicate that many students do
not make a clear distinction between embodying
Christianity, and embodying what it means to be a
Christian professional in a given field. Although these
“exemplars” of integration could simply be dismissed
as reflecting a lack of sophistication in the students’
views of integration, perhaps they can be seen in a different light. Many scholars dedicated to integration
would resist the notion that being a Christian professional simply means being a Christian, then being the
best professional possible. The other side of the same
coin is articulated by the students in this study. Students seem to be communicating here the incongruity between preaching integration, and not having
the depth of Christian character to provide a foundation for that integration. Consequently, while simply
having a good Christian character may not suffice for
good integration to occur (after all, living the faith
and reflecting Christ is something all followers of
Christ are called to—not just integrative professionals), it does appear to be a necessary foundation for
integration in the minds of students.
The necessity of this type of embodied foundation for integration has been acknowledged since
the early years of the integration movement. In their
seminal work, The Integration of Psychology and
Theology, Carter and Narramore (1979) stated,
“very little conceptual integration is possible without
a degree of personal integration” (p. 117). Tan
(2001) also emphasized that the spirituality of the
integrator is a necessary foundation for conceptual
STUDENT PERSPECTIVES
integration, stating, “personal or intrapersonal integration including the spirituality of the integrator is
the most fundamental and foundation category of
integration, without which biblical integration of
psychology and Christian faith…cannot be achieved”
(pp. 20-21). Similarly, Farnsworth (1985) proposed
the concept of “embodied integration,” which he
defined as “living God’s truth in addition to knowing
about God’s truth” (p. 317).
However, the mechanisms through which this
embodiment affects integration have received less
attention. Evans (1989), reflecting a philosophical tradition stemming from Kierkegaard, argued that our
very perceptions are affected by the meaning of the
event being perceived, and consequently “there is a
close link between the character of my own being and
my ability to observe certain kinds of behavior accurately” (p. 52). Hall and Porter (2004), relying on current knowledge of cognitive science, have taken this a
step further by arguing that the most sophisticated
types of integration require “referential activity,” a particular way of processing information which requires a
high degree of embodied integration in the integrator.
The need for further theoretical analysis of the mechanisms involved in embodied integration is apparent.
Integration as practice . While many student
descriptions of integration were “generically” Christian (as noted above), other “examples” of integration clearly did involve bringing together Christian
character and beliefs, within a professional context.
Many students stated appreciation for hearing stories of integration in daily life, by professors, retreat
speakers, conference speakers, and invited guests
(57 responses). “Practical” and “real” were key word
in these descriptions: real people, real life, real
world. This type of integration is consistent with
what Bouma-Prediger (1990) called “faith-praxis”
integration. Many noted classroom experiences that
provided specific instructions on how to practically
apply integrative insights (19 responses). For example, “The dramatic readings in playwriting class,
where the students and the professor have actually
had to cope with potentially offensive dialogue as
reality.” One student told a dramatic story about
hearing a lecture on spiritual warfare, then having
the class pray for someone in the class to be set free,
and having that student healed of cancer. Six different students noted a therapy video where the therapist demonstrated integration.
Students also expressed a desire for more practical integration, both in pedagogy and in their own
HALL, RIPLEY, GARZON, and MANGIS
training experiences (39 responses). Pedagogically,
students called for more real life examples, more
simulation exercises, more guest speakers recruited
from practitioners, more application of theory to
real situations, more integrative issues in clinical
training (for psychologists), more vignettes and case
studies, etcetera. Students also wanted to be pushed
to apply integration themselves, through servicelearning assignments and practicums.
More specifically, some students expressed
appreciation for insights into how to integrate in secular settings (9 responses), and others expressed
concern that they were not getting this kind of training (13 responses). One student appreciated that “It
is taught with the purpose of going outside the Christian community and functioning on a level that will
most effectively be an aid to God’s reclaiming the
integrity of His creation.” Another expressed concern, “I would like to see more emphasis on how our
studies and faith can better be applied to secular
audiences and to the contexts of relationships outside of school.”
Facing professional challenges also emerged as a
way in which the practice of integration was demonstrated (6 responses). “The most effective integrative
activity has been relating of personal challenges that
professors faced as Christians in the professional
realm.” Another example was given of a professor
responding to an attack against Christians in a scholarly article, where the professor’s written response
was “both firm and loving, professional yet very
much in defense of believers in this field.”
Other students emphasized exercising Christian
principles and character traits in their discipline (5
responses). A film student talked about “the integration of being humble and fair on a film set ... paying
people what they ought to be paid.” A journalism
student noted the importance of truth, “We should
do it better than non Christians.” A law student stated, “I appreciate most how we are taught to be zealous advocates for our clients while at the same time
honoring God.” A business student emphasized
“bringing the stewardship aspect into business.”
Another group emphasized using their discipline
as a platform for evangelism (5 responses). A student
recalled a guest speaker from the business world who
is “constantly looking for ways to share his faith.” A
nursing student praised a professor who nursed a
very difficult man, “ultimately leading him to faith in
Jesus and peace with God before his death.”
25
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present study has both theoretical and pedagogical implications. With respect to our theoretical
notions of integration, these students’ views of integration suggest that we must take seriously the practical, embodied, and theoretical nature of integration. With respect to the teaching of integration,
these responses suggest that Christian institutions
must reflect integration at a number of levels to optimize the learning of integration.
Notions of Integration
Through the use of multidimensional scaling,
Sorensen (1997) found five variables loading on two
dimensions to correlate significantly with the learning of integration. The first dimension, which included the variables Evidence of Ongoing Process in a
Personal Relationship with God, Emotional Transparency, and Sense of Humor, correlated most
strongly with the learning of integration, accounting
for over half the variance. The second variable,
which included Openness to New Thinking and
Openness to Differing Points of View, though significant, accounted for only 8% of the variance.
Three of the themes in the current study echo the
responses found by Sorensen in his focus group with
students, used to create the instrument for his 1997
study. Specifically, students in the present study also
valued “evidence of a professor’s ongoing process in
a personal relationship with God,” and “emotional
transparency,” coded in the present study as “self-revelation.” They also appreciated openness on the part
of the professor, which in the present study most
strongly reflected Sorenson’s category of “Openness
to Differing Points of View.” This lends further support to the notion that these personal qualities of the
professor are crucial to the facilitation of integration. Other categories from Sorensen’s study, however, were not reflected in the student responses to the
current survey. “Sense of Humor” and “Openness to
New Thinking” did not emerge as categories. This
may be an artifact of the different methodologies
used to gather data.
It is worth noting that different methodologies
have differing strengths in terms of the type of material that they elicit. While the influence of professors
emerged as important both in the current qualitative
analysis, and in the multidimensional scaling (MDS)
study by Sorensen (1997), each methodology elicited
overlapping but distinct domains. The MDS study
26
utilized prompts for sorting, and items for correlating with the dimensions, that had to do with personal qualities of the professor. The prompts in the present study asked directly about experiences with
integration, the outcome variable. While this
methodology elicited comments about the professors, many of these comments had to do with specific integrative class content, rather than with qualities
of the professor him- or herself. It may be that the
wording of the questions elicited academic examples
of integration. For example, one student wrote, “I
admit that I am not sure exactly what this question is
asking. As I read it my interpretation is: what is the
best example of one of my professors integrating
their faith into the classroom while instructing me.”
If this substantial emphasis on course content is
not an artifact of the method, it suggests that integration is not just something experiential that is embodied or practiced, but also something conceptual,
with a content that can be learned. Hall and Porter
(2004), in summarizing the many attempts to outline
models and types of integration (e.g., Eck, 1996;
Bouma-Prediger, 1990), stated that “two broad, higher-order types of integration emerge in the literature:
one type that has more to do with conceptual ideas
about [the subject matter of psychology], and a second type that has more to do with personal spiritualemotional growth” (p. 168), which they refer to as
“conceptual integration” and “experiential integration,” respectively. The present study affirms the
existence and importance of both conceptual and
experiential aspects of integration.
Recent writings in integration have tended to
downplay the conceptual aspect and highlight the
experiential aspect, perhaps in an attempt to provide
an antithesis to early integrative writings that were primarily theoretical in nature. Most recently, the Jacobsens (2004) have advocated the idea that Christian revelation is personal, rather than propositional, arguing
on that basis that Christian scholarship has an embodied character, rather than a propositional nature. Jones
(2006) argues that this is a needless dichotomy, and
cites Pope John Paul II as follows: “What is distinctive
in the biblical text is the conviction that there is a profound and indissoluble unity between the knowledge
of reason and the knowledge of faith” (II.16.4). “Belief
is often humanly richer than mere evidence, because it
involves an interpersonal relationship and brings into
play not only a person’s capacity to know but also the
deeper capacity to entrust oneself to others, to enter
into a relationship with them which is intimate and
STUDENT PERSPECTIVES
enduring” (III.32.1) (Fides et Ratio, cited in Jones,
2006, p. 258). Jones notes that the interpersonal
aspect enriches the knowing process, that the two are
complementary, “It is not ‘personal or propositional’;
rather, it is personal and propositional” (p. 258).
Sorenson’s (1997) emphasis on the crucial role of
the professor in the learning of integration was verified in this study, though the manner in which he or
she is influential was expanded to include the professors as facilitators of integration through the communication of propositional content and as an example
of the practice of integration. Also evident was the
fact that the two aspects—experiential and conceptual—could not be separated from each other in the
experiences of students; consistent with Jones’ point
above, the conceptual seemed to make an impact in
the presence of evidence of personal engagement, as
in one student’s description of “heartfelt devotions.”
As noted above, Hall and Porter (2004) have articulated cogently that quality conceptual integration can
only occur in the presence of experiential integration.
Other institutional aspects, though mentioned,
received relatively little attention from students.
Implications for Pedagogy
Building on the Sorenson tradition, the current
study calls us to examine once again the question,
“What if how students learn integration and how
their instructors teach it aren’t the same?” (Staton,
Sorenson, & Vande Kemp, 1998, p. 340). Once
again, this study affirms that relational processes are,
in fact, important in how students learn integration.
The results of this study support the conclusion that
“what is crucial to students’ integration is a dynamic,
ongoing process that a mentor is modeling before
the students’ eyes in ways to which students feel they
have real access personally, perhaps even as collaborators in the project together” (Sorenson, Derflinger,
Bufford, & McMinn, 2004, p. 364). In addition to
qualities of the professor identified by Sorenson et
al., the present study suggests that the broader institutional community also contribute to a feeling of
openness, safety, and valuing of the integrative process that facilitates its transmission. This occurs
through interactions with other students and staff, as
well as through the overall structure the institution
provides to the integrative enterprise.
The present study also suggests that the quality of
the propositional content presented to students is
important. Students are discriminating consumers,
HALL, RIPLEY, GARZON, and MANGIS
and notice when attempts at integration are half-hearted, insincere, done out of duty, forced, or of poor quality. This suggests that institutions who value integration must choose their faculty carefully, noting their
potential for sophisticated, and sincere integration.
These findings also suggest that professors who
teach integration, in addition to embodying integration, should focus on methodologies which emphasize the link between theories of integration, and
their practice in the real world. Students in professional graduate programs, in particular, are in school
in order to receive training to practice a profession,
whether as a psychologist, educator, or lawyer.
When we fail to bridge the gap between theoretical,
propositional content, and their applied experiences
as people and as professionals, we have fallen short
of fully preparing them to practice their professions
as Christians in a fallen world.
REFERENCES
Bouma-Prediger, S. (1990). The task of integration: A modest proposal. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18, 21-31.
Carter, J. D., & Narramore, B. (1979). The integration of psychology and theology: An introduction. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (2nd Ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Eck, B. E. (1996). Integrating the integrators: An organizing
framework for a multifaceted process of integration. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity, 15, 101-115.
Evans, C. S. (1989). Wisdom and humanness in psychology:
Prospects for a Christian approach. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House.
Farnsworth, K. (1985). Whole-hearted integration: Harmonizing psychology and Christianity through word and deed.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Hall, T. W., & Porter, S. L. (2004). Referential integration: An
emotional information processing perspective on the process of
integration. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 167-180.
Jacobsen, D., & Jacobsen, R. H. (2004). Scholarship and Christian faith: Enlarging the conversation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, E. L. (1992). A place for the Bible within psychological
science. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 20, 346-355.
Jones, S. L. (2006). Integration: Defending it, describing it, doing
it. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, 252-259.
Laurenceau, J.-P., Feldman Barrett, L., & Pietromonaco, P. R.
(1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of
self-disclosure,partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251.
27
Ripley, J. S., Garzon, F. L., Hall, M. E. L., Mangis, M. W., & Murphy, C. J. (2009). Pilgrims’ progress: Faculty and university factors
in graduate student integration of faith and profession. Journal
of Psychology and Theology, 37, 5-14.
Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sorenson, R. L. (1997). Doctoral students’ integration of psychology and Christianity: Perspectives via attachment theory and multidimensional scaling. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(4), 530-648.
Sorenson, R. L., Derflinger, K. R., Bufford, R. K., & McMinn, M.
R. (2004). National collaborative research on how students learn
integration: Final report. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 355-365.
Staton, R., Sorenson, R. L., & Vande Kemp, H. (1998). How students learn integration: Replication of the Sorenson (1997a)
model. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 26, 340-350.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tan, S. Y. (1987). Intrapersonal integration: The servant’s spirituality. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 6(1), 34-39.
Tan, S. Y. (2001). Integration and beyond: Principled, professional, and personal. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 20,
18-28.
AUTHORS
HALL, M. ELIZABETH, L. Address: Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University, 13800 Biola Ave., La Mirada, CA 90639. Title:
Associate Professor of Psychology. Degree: Ph.D., Clinical Psychology, Biola University. Specializations: Women's Issues, Missions and
Mental Health, Integration of Psychology and Theology.
RIPLEY, JENNIFER, S. Address: Regent University, 1000 Regent
University Dr, Virginia Beach VA 23464. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degree: Ph.D. Specializations: marriage and religion,
forgiveness.
GARZON, FERNANDO, L. Address: Liberty University, 1971
University Blvd. Lynchburg, VA 24502. Email:
fgarzon@liberty.edu. Title: Associate Professor in the Center for
Counseling and Family Studies, Liberty University. Degree: Psy.D.
Specializations: Integration pedagogy, spiritual interventions in
psychotherapy, multicultural issues, and lay Christian counseling.
MANGIS, MICHAEL, W. Address: Wheaton College, 501 College Avenue, Wheaton, IL, 60187-5593. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degree: Ph.D. Specializations: Integration of psychology and theology, applications of contemplative Christian
spirituality, psychoanalytic psychology.